IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.A. No.1603 of 2025 State of Odisha … Appellant Mr. S. B. Mohanty, AGA -versus- Pradeep Kumar Pany & Ors. … Respondents None CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Date of Hearing & Judgment: 22.06.2026 Chittaranjan Dash, J. 1. Heard. 2. The present intra-Court appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) (OAC) No.2109 of 2017, whereby the orders dated 07.07.2017 rejecting the claim of the Writ-Petitioners for re-engagement were quashed and the competent authority was directed to take a fresh decision on their claim in the light of the observations made therein. 3. I.A. No.2839 of 2025 has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 178 days in filing the present writ appeal. Considering the averments made in the I.A. and upon hearing learned counsel for the Appellant, this Court is satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown. Accordingly, the delay in filing the writ appeal is condoned. W.A. No.1603 of 2025 4. The principal contention advanced on behalf of the Appellant- State is that the learned Single Judge erred in interfering with the orders dated 07.07.2017 despite the admitted position that the Respondents stood disengaged since the year 2003 and that their initial engagement itself was contrary to the Finance Department Circular dated 12.04.1993. It is contended that, in the absence of any subsisting relationship of employer and employee and in view of the long lapse of time, no direction for reconsideration of their claim could have been issued. According to the Appellant, the orders dated 07.07.2017 contained sufficient reasons for rejection of the Respondents’ claim and, therefore, warranted no interference. 5. At the outset, it must be borne in mind that the learned Single Judge has not directed either regularisation or re-engagement of the Respondents. The impugned judgment merely requires the competent authority to undertake a fresh examination of the Respondents’ claim after considering certain relevant aspects which were found to have escaped consideration while passing the orders dated 07.07.2017. 6. A careful reading of the order dated 17.05.2017 passed in O.A. No.2491(C) of 2014 reveals that the Tribunal had specifically directed the authority to consider, inter alia, the claim of the applicants that juniors and similarly situated persons had been taken back in service. The grievance of the Respondents, therefore, was not confined merely to a claim for regularisation but extended to an allegation of unequal treatment vis-à-vis other similarly situated persons. W.A. No.1603 of 2025 7. The learned Single Judge noticed that while reducing the number of HR workers from 877 to 595, the names of the Respondents were excluded and that the Government itself had sought clarification regarding the circumstances under which such reduction had taken place. The record did not disclose any meaningful consideration of these aspects while rejecting the Respondents’ claim under the orders dated 07.07.2017. It is this deficiency in the decision- making process which persuaded the learned Single Judge to direct a fresh consideration. However, while passing the consequential orders dated 07.07.2017, the authority proceeded primarily on the premise that the Respondents had already been disengaged and, therefore, were not entitled to any relief. What appears to have weighed with the learned Single Judge is the absence of any meaningful consideration of the circumstances under which the Respondents allegedly came to be excluded from the list of HR workers when the strength was reduced from 877 to 595, despite the Government itself having sought clarification in that regard. The record further disclosed that no material had been produced to demonstrate that such aspect had ever been examined by the authority while rejecting the Respondents’ claim. 8. The issue assumes significance because if the assertion of the Respondents that similarly situated or even junior persons were retained or extended the benefit of continuation is found to be correct, the matter would necessarily require examination on the touchstone of equality. In Pawan Kumar & Ors. vs. Union of India, 2026 INSC 156, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated that where similarly W.A. No.1603 of 2025 situated daily-rated or casual workers have been extended the benefit of regularisation, another identically situated employee cannot be denied consideration without a valid and intelligible basis. 9. Nevertheless, tested on the aforesaid touchstone, we find ourselves in agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the orders dated 07.07.2017 could not have been sustained without a proper examination of the materials having a direct bearing on the Respondents' grievance. The learned Single Judge was, therefore, justified in setting aside the said orders and directing a fresh consideration of the matter. Significantly, no substantive relief has been granted in favour of the Respondents. The competent authority has been directed to reconsider their claim independently and in accordance with law, leaving all questions of fact and law open for determination, including the nature and legality of their engagement, the effect of the Finance Department Circular and other relevant considerations. 10. Therefore, for the reasons aforesaid, we find no infirmity in the judgment dated 13.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) (OAC) No.2109 of 2017 warranting interference in exercise of our appellate jurisdiction. The Writ Appeal, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. Consequently, the impugned judgment is affirmed. 11. Considering, however, that the matter pertains to claims arising from events dating back several years and that the competent authority would be required to undertake the exercise directed by the learned Single Judge upon examination of the relevant records and W.A. No.1603 of 2025 materials, we deem it appropriate to grant the Appellant-State a period of three (3) months from today to comply with and implement the directions contained in the judgment dated 13.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge. 12. Pending I.As., if any, also stands disposed of accordingly. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgement forthwith by Registered Post/ Speed Post to the Respondents for reference. (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge (Krishna S. Dixit) Judge A.K.Pradhan/Bijay/Sarbani/Priyanka Designation: Junior Stenographer